Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.30 seconds)Section 253 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) By Lrs vs Exe.Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project & Anr on 3 November, 2008
"Law of Limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it
has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so
prescribes and the Courts have no power to extend the period of
limitation on equitable grounds. The discretion exercised by the
High Court was, thus, neither proper nor judicious. The order
condoning the delay cannot be sustained. This appeal, therefore,
succeeds and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the
application for condonation of delay filed in the High Court would
stand rejected and the Miscellaneous First Appeal shall stand
dismissed as barred by time. No costs." (emphasis is ours)
5.5 In the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (dead) by LRs vs Executive
Engineer Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that basically the laws of limitation are founded
on public policy and the courts have expressed at least three
different reasons supporting the existence of statutes of limitation,
namely (i) that long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice
in them, (ii) that a defendant might have lost the evidence to dispute
the stated claim, and (iii) that persons with good causes of action
should pursue them with reasonable diligence. While dealing with the
issue of condonation of delays on the part of the governmental bodies
in filing the appeals, the Apex Court held thus:
Balwant Singh (Dead) vs Jagdish Singh & Ors on 8 July, 2010
"31. It is true when the State and its instrumentalities are the
applicants seeking condonation of delay they may be entitled to
9
certain amount of latitude but the law of limitation is same for
citizen and for Governmental authorities. Limitation Act does not
provide for a different period to the government in filing appeals
or applications as such. It would be a different matter where the
Government makes out a case where public interest was shown to
have suffered owing to acts of fraud or collusion on the part of
its officers or agents and where the officers were clearly at
cross purposes with it. In a given case if any such facts are
pleaded or proved they cannot be excluded from consideration
and those factors may go into the judicial verdict. In the present
case, no such facts are pleaded and proved though a feeble
attempt by the learned counsel for the respondent was made to
suggest collusion and fraud but without any basis. We cannot
entertain the submission made across the Bar without there
being any proper foundation in the pleadings". (emphasis is ours)
5.6 The concepts of "liberal approach" and "reasonableness" in the
exercise of discretion by the courts in condoning delay were again
considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwant
Singh(dead) vs Jagdish Singh & Others, (2010) 8 SCC 685, holding
thus :
Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs C.L. Jain Woolen Mills Pvt. Ltd. on 11 May, 2006
36. The party shows that besides acting bonafide, it had taken
all possible steps within its power and control and had
approached the court without any unnecessary delay. The test is
11
whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it would have
been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and
attention." (emphasis is ours)
5.7 In the case of Union of India vs C.L. Jain Woolen Mills Pvt.
Ltd., 131 (2006) DLT 360, one of the arguments of the applicant
Union of India seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal
was that the power to condone delay has been conferred to do
substantial justice and the court should adopt a liberal approach
and the delay resulting from official Digitally Signed ITA
401/2023 Page 7 of 15 pages procedures should normally be
condoned.
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Mangat (Dead) By L.Rs. And Ors. on 8 February, 2000
5. The practical problem in the day to day cases is how to
reconcile the two principles laid down by the Supreme Court,
namely - (i) the doctrine of equality before law demands that all
litigants including the State as litigant should be accorded the
same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed
manner, and (ii) it would perhaps be unfair and unrealistic to put
Government and private parties on the same footing in all
respects in such matters. The Supreme Court in the judgments
referred to above had observed that the State should not be
given step-motherly treatment. If all the petitions of
14
condonation of delay filed in the large number of cases are to be
accepted, as requested by the Government Advocate, a citizen
would naturally complain that the State is being given a „son-in-
law treatment.
Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987
"3. No doubt, some leeway is given for the Government
inefficiencies but the sad part is that the authorities keep on
relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of time when
technology had not advanced and a greater leeway was given to
15
the Government (Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr vs.
Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107).
Section 153A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Office Of The Chief Post Master & Ors vs Living Media India Ltd.& Anr on 24 February, 2012
This position is more than
elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office of the Chief
Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr.
(2012) 3 SCC 563 where the Court observed as under:
"27) It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well
aware or conversant with the issues involved including the
prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way
of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim
that they have a separate period of limitation when the
Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with
court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable
explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be
condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing
of the Government is a party before us.